If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What does it mean to be a "modern" Trekker anyway, now that Berman's ruined that with a cruddy prequel?

What does it mean? Nothing extremely concrete, but I mean TNG, DS9, and Voyager over TOS. Don't get me wrong, TOS started it for me, but in terms of storytelling, TOS never seemed as mature and certainly wasn't subtle. Being smashed over the head with the moral of the week to a Stravinsky-inspired soundtrack never did it for me quite like post season 2 TNG. Every time I think of Enterprise, all I can think of is my friend commenting that I thought that show stunk so much I had to open a window to let the smell out after watching it.

Originally Posted by JediTricks

I'm a TNG-era Trekkie first, but the Refit 1701/A is far and away my favorite design. I like the E over the D too, but the D's a much more important character to me. I agree with what you're saying on the Nebula class, that rearrangement of elements looks far better than the bloated lines of the Galaxy-class.

With the exception of the opinion on the -A, I completely agree with all the above. The -D was the ship we loved from '87 until '94.

Originally Posted by JediTricks

BTW, way to go to the source on that one, good call, it never would have occurred to me for some reason.

You know, I just didn't even realize that Jackill was still making those books. I went to the website and thought, "There's new stuff coming out?" I haven't read a Jackill manual since high school, more than ten years ago. I might have to pick up the -E manual, and I really wish Pocket Books or whomever would put out some good material on the First Contact ships, Norway, Akira, Steamrunner, and Sabre. I know I might give my left and right arm to have gotten those ships in Micro Machine form.

Weeellll if this thread is due for some figure-related talk, I busted my Art Asylum Trek cherry and ordered 2 of the Red Data & Riker/Troi sets from NFC, so...6 down...a million to go. Actually it's not too many that I'm gonna get but rather it's how hard some are to get.

I was bummed to learn that Tapestry Picard was out of stock with DST around the same time I discovered an awesome deal on the Q DVD set. Though NFC has mentioned they've gotten some of the Picards and will be doing a similar thing as they did with Data.

Also, the Star Trek magazine has mentioned the possibility of season 1 Riker (being released at the same time as Picard in chair) having his own chair included.

"Hokey packaging and ancient gimmicks are no match for good detail on your figure, kid.""I am a Klingot from Oklahoma in human boy form.""We came, we saw, we conquered... We, woke up!"

There's some debate about that, one of the early sets of blueprints out there claimed they were the arboretum even though it didn't match the set at all, and others have said the arboretum is on the underside of the ship just like on the Refit 1701/A (the arboretum is DEFINITELY on the underside of the refit, it's what those blue windows are). Anyway, he'd know what those windows are originally for since he personally designed the Ent-D.

Everything I've read says the TOS Enterprise is 289 meters, not 303.

What does it mean to be a "modern" Trekker anyway, now that Berman's ruined that with a cruddy prequel? I'm a TNG-era Trekkie first, but the Refit 1701/A is far and away my favorite design. I like the E over the D too, but the D's a much more important character to me. I agree with what you're saying on the Nebula class, that rearrangement of elements looks far better than the bloated lines of the Galaxy-class.

BTW, way to go to the source on that one, good call, it never would have occurred to me for some reason.

No, you're interpolating that statement without proper foundation, Probert says it's a "few" feet longer and you merely assumed that it meant 3. When you say:
there's no actual basis in fact to your statement there, the word "few" in Probert's usage means small in amount but not specific. "Few"'s usage is generally three or more, but it can be even as low as two, or as high as a million if the greater number is significantly higher than a million. 16m is just a few meters longer in comparison to 289m, just 5.5%.

(you know, this highlights one of the reasons I consider myself a Trekkie first and a SW fan second, the ability to discuss this stuff with precision, even when we disagree, it's part of the "science" in science fiction. There's no such aspect to Star Wars since it's pretty light on the science aspect of the science fiction, it's much more space fantasy - like the poor Millennium Falcon being multiple sizes.)

I don't see how you can claim the TOS nacelles are being shown SMALLER in that image when they're physically taller and longer from the tip, plus we know they're also wider and round so they take up even more space.

Again, that's because the refit isn't 3 feet longer, the TOS Enterprise is 289m and the TMP Enterprise is 305m, that's a difference of 16m, which that image is showing.

Too late, I've already made my decision. As with Mandel's fan Imperator blueprints the same goes for the blueprints for star Trek back then. Although nice not a rock solid source of info. You want to believe 289 thats your choice, I'm with 304m.

What does it mean? Nothing extremely concrete, but I mean TNG, DS9, and Voyager over TOS. Don't get me wrong, TOS started it for me, but in terms of storytelling, TOS never seemed as mature and certainly wasn't subtle. Being smashed over the head with the moral of the week to a Stravinsky-inspired soundtrack never did it for me quite like post season 2 TNG. Every time I think of Enterprise, all I can think of is my friend commenting that I thought that show stunk so much I had to open a window to let the smell out after watching it.

I think we have to define ourselves based on what era we're a fan of now, since "modern" Trek today is Enterprise and the upcoming TOS-prequel movie being made by JJ Abrams (I fear this one will be awful). So I see what you're saying, I'd call it being a "TNG-era fan" though since that era's no longer "modern". Plus, TNG is 20 years old this year and I hate to say it, but it feels sorta dated too.

One thing I can stand up for on TOS is the maturity of the storytelling, granted they were forced to do some cheesy scripts, but there was some stuff in there that even today resonates strongly. And a couple things I think made TOS work so well that the later Treks didn't have (especially Enterprise) are a more shakespearean-yet-raw tone to the drama, and an ability to have a sense of humor - you watch DS9 and even when they try to do humorous eps like Tribbles or the the baseball ep or the spy eps, it stands out like a sore thumb because of how humorless the rest of the eps are.

You know, I just didn't even realize that Jackill was still making those books. I went to the website and thought, "There's new stuff coming out?" I haven't read a Jackill manual since high school, more than ten years ago. I might have to pick up the -E manual, and I really wish Pocket Books or whomever would put out some good material on the First Contact ships, Norway, Akira, Steamrunner, and Sabre. I know I might give my left and right arm to have gotten those ships in Micro Machine form.

I wish Paramount would get off their arses and do those books you mentioned, but they seem reticent now - there's still no real defined Ent-E or Defiant book (Vulcantouch got me the DS9 tech manual before he died, but it's not much of a Defiant book).

Originally Posted by James31278

You want to believe 289 thats your choice, I'm with 304m.

Except that the 289 number is the one the producers and Mike Okuda have said is accurate.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.

I think we have to define ourselves based on what era we're a fan of now, since "modern" Trek today is Enterprise and the upcoming TOS-prequel movie being made by JJ Abrams (I fear this one will be awful). So I see what you're saying, I'd call it being a "TNG-era fan" though since that era's no longer "modern". Plus, TNG is 20 years old this year and I hate to say it, but it feels sorta dated too.

One thing I can stand up for on TOS is the maturity of the storytelling, granted they were forced to do some cheesy scripts, but there was some stuff in there that even today resonates strongly. And a couple things I think made TOS work so well that the later Treks didn't have (especially Enterprise) are a more shakespearean-yet-raw tone to the drama, and an ability to have a sense of humor - you watch DS9 and even when they try to do humorous eps like Tribbles or the the baseball ep or the spy eps, it stands out like a sore thumb because of how humorless the rest of the eps are.

I wish Paramount would get off their arses and do those books you mentioned, but they seem reticent now - there's still no real defined Ent-E or Defiant book (Vulcantouch got me the DS9 tech manual before he died, but it's not much of a Defiant book).

Except that the 289 number is the one the producers and Mike Okuda have said is accurate.

When and where did they say it or are you implying the site itself says they say it?

I don't know if that's the best place for it, but there doesn't appear to be any general Trek thread, and the current state of Trek seems to be at least slightly descriptive of some of what we're going on about. If you wanted to move it, do that admin voodoo you do so well.

Otherwise, I'm tired of watching evidence be changed to fit conclusions rather than conclusions changed to fit evidence, so I'm done talking about Constitution size issues.

I don't know if that's the best place for it, but there doesn't appear to be any general Trek thread, and the current state of Trek seems to be at least slightly descriptive of some of what we're going on about. If you wanted to move it, do that admin voodoo you do so well.

Otherwise, I'm tired of watching evidence be changed to fit conclusions rather than conclusions changed to fit evidence, so I'm done talking about Constitution size issues.

Star Trek: 40th Anniversary TOS Enterprise - Rick at NewForceComics did a great job with a nice price and decent shipping. This is a very welcome piece, especially now that the remastered TOS eps are airing, but I feel like there's something more that could have been done with it, maybe a subtle plated paintjob the way the remastered version looks, or more Shatner lines, or diffusing the top and bottom saucer domes, or lighting the impulse engines, or a couple more sounds. I dunno, it's very nice but it's like DST/AA kneeled at the 10 yard line during a perfect kick return. The ship has nice detailing for what is there, though the plugs covering the screw holes are done very sloppy compared to the rest of this line, and the paint is minimal but effective where added. The shape seems spot-on except the saucer looks a little fat to me. The sounds and lights are nifty except for the Shatner lines which are sloppily taken from eps and don't have the right tone to them, and the warp sound which is too short. Finally, the stand is a big step backwards for this line, it's back to the 1-sided flimsy versions, and this time with a new ugly cylinder acting as a cup outside the ship for the first time (even weirder since this ship, unlike the last one the Ent-E, comes with the solid battery hatch as well). Still, very much worth getting if you're a Trek fan.

Originally Posted by James31278

When and where did they say it or are you implying the site itself says they say it?

I don't know if that's the best place for it, but there doesn't appear to be any general Trek thread, and the current state of Trek seems to be at least slightly descriptive of some of what we're going on about. If you wanted to move it, do that admin voodoo you do so well.

No, that's an excellent thread for it, I've responded there.

Darth Vader is becoming the Mickey Mouse of Star Wars.

"In Brooklyn, a castle, is where dwell I"

The use of a lightsaber does not make one a Jedi, it is the ability to not use it.